• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Can we be good without God?

In my understanding of my experiences and observations of the world and the way it works, I am stating that I don't believe you can be truly good without God.
If there is absolute truth, then there is the possibility of good. Not a transient good fitting the opinions of the times, but a universal good that is always good, always the same, unchanging in time. Further, I would offer that God is the author of Truth. Absolute truth. It makes sense to me that there must be an author to set this in place. The first cause.
Without absolute truth we simply have our opinions. Opinions without absolute truth can be neither good nor bad, they just are, and we personally feel some way about them at the time.
What is good today may be bad tomorrow.

Personally, I consider myself a good and decent person, kind and generous. I haven't been a religious person for decades. As a former Catholic, I believe in the possibility and probability of an entity greater than anything we currently know, and in that respect I believe in the concept of God. I have zero respect for and belief in organized religion and all the harm they've brought to the world. Evil done in the name of any and all organized religions is what I reject, and for me that's a good thing.
 
That's your opinion, which you are entitled to and which I and some other people don't agree with.

Where was your God when hundreds of Roman Catholic priests were sexually abusing children all over this planet?

Read more here: BBC News - Benedict XVI defrocked nearly 400 priests in two years

I don't wish to derail this thread, but get tired of misinformation continually being recycled. From a Denver Post blog:

Insurance companies, child advocacy groups and religion scholars say there is no evidence that Catholic clergy are more likely to be involved in sexual misconduct than other clergy or professionals. Yet ongoing civil litigation of decades-old cases against a church with deep pockets keeps the Catholic Church in the headlines. Catholic priests no guiltier of sex abuse than other clergy
 
I was a Christian the first half of my life, now I'm an agnostic.

The inner me and my moral code has not changed one bit.

But if a person feels they need religion to be a good person, I say stick with it.




Some religious people do good things.

Other religious people do bad things.

Who does that surprise?
 
That is an interesting question... really I think it is worthy of its own thread.

A closely related question is "If there were suddenly NO LAW, no law enforcement, no impediment to doing anything you wished to do except your ability to do it... what would you do in a lawless environment where you would not be punished for anything?"

For many people I think the answer to both questions is that their behaviors would not change a great deal. A lifetime of studying the human condition, however, has lead me to believe that there is a certain percentage of the population who would indeed engage in some pretty heinous behaviors if they had no fear of punishment or loss thereby... what percentage is hard to say, but I think not less than 5% and possibly as high as 20%...

In a world without law, we'd make law. That would be the first thing we'd do. Just like if society collapsed and all the power went out. We wouldn't turn into Mad Max. We'd rebuild society and turn the power back on.

"Good" has to be defined by a hard and fast standard. That standard is God. Without God there is no "good and bad" there is only degrees of generally acceptable behavior.

So then all morality is merely obedience? That sounds a lot like slavery to me. Especially since this obedience is backed up with tremendous violence. So, it actually sounds exactly like slavery, not only of the body but of the mind.
 
If someone feels they need their religion to be a good person, I cannot help but to worry about them losing their religion.




Anyone whose whole life is tied up with their religion has a serious problem when they lose that religion as many people eventually do.






 
Last edited:
That is an interesting question... really I think it is worthy of its own thread.

A closely related question is "If there were suddenly NO LAW, no law enforcement, no impediment to doing anything you wished to do except your ability to do it... what would you do in a lawless environment where you would not be punished for anything?"

For many people I think the answer to both questions is that their behaviors would not change a great deal. A lifetime of studying the human condition, however, has lead me to believe that there is a certain percentage of the population who would indeed engage in some pretty heinous behaviors if they had no fear of punishment or loss thereby... what percentage is hard to say, but I think not less than 5% and possibly as high as 20%...

I view being "good" as an emergent property of social behavior. Yes there would be some who gravitated towards lawlessness, and your estimate is probably about right. We would group together, and in small groups at first, and then in increasingly larger groups we would weed out those that are detrimental to the safety and well being of the whole. They would become ostracized and removed from the group or in some way neutralized so as not to create harm. As a result of removing bad and promoting good (behaviors which increase survival /individual safety), empathy will take over and order would get restored. "Good" is a necessity of our ability to thrive as a social animal.
 
"There is none good, no not one..."

Speaking from the Christian perspective, we are all sinners in need of a savior. Many Christian denominations believe it is impossible for any individual to live without sinning in word, thought or deed.
"Good" may not be the best word for it... "Righteous" is, IMO more the scriptural term. Righteous as in "right with God"... which is impossible without God's grace, and His guidance.
Naturally those who are viewing the question from a non-Christian perspective will see it differently and answer differently.

I like your thoughts. I've only got as far as this post in my reading. I guess I can't post something like this and go for a short hike and expect to keep up.
I think my statement would have been better phrased as "does good exist apart from God?" Yes, righteousness would be a very fitting replacement for "good."

There is one who is good. "And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone."

What I was trying to illustrate is that although anyone might do things that most would consider good, true righteousness comes from God. In my mind, this is absolute truth.
Whenever we encounter absolute truth we can know it is good. Those who do not believe in absolute truth can't establish a basis for good.
And yes, I believe the Bible spells out this truth for us to know. Apart from a personal relationship with Christ we can't fully embrace that wonder of Truth.
We will always be swayed by our own desires or the directives of other people to some extent. This is the salt of the earth if you will that Christ spoke of. It flavors the world for God.
 
In a world without law, we'd make law. That would be the first thing we'd do. Just like if society collapsed and all the power went out. We wouldn't turn into Mad Max. We'd rebuild society and turn the power back on.



So then all morality is merely obedience? That sounds a lot like slavery to me. Especially since this obedience is backed up with tremendous violence. So, it actually sounds exactly like slavery, not only of the body but of the mind.



You are a little more optimistic about human nature than I am. :) I've seen too much of the bad side of it to be quite so positive.

However, do you see the contradiction in your two paragraphs? In the first, you assert that the first thing we'd do in a collapse is make law and rebuild society and societies RULES. In the second you assert that obedience under threat is an abhorrent slavery to you... do you not recognize that all Law is also force and threat? That is the fundamental nature of it... it is not suggestion or guideline, it is LAW and it is enforced and violators are punished... and historically law has not been about the greatest good for the greatest number in many places and times...
 
....So then all morality is merely obedience? That sounds a lot like slavery to me. Especially since this obedience is backed up with tremendous violence. So, it actually sounds exactly like slavery, not only of the body but of the mind.

It is interesting that Jesus said you can't serve both God and Mammon. He implies that we will serve somebody. It seems to be our condition. Serving the truth could be considered slavery, but really, it isn't much different than you serving the law of gravity. It just is what it is.
 
In a world without law, we'd make law. That would be the first thing we'd do. Just like if society collapsed and all the power went out. We wouldn't turn into Mad Max. We'd rebuild society and turn the power back on.
Yes we would, eventually. Which implies, there is an inherent will to morality in us. What's interesting is when there is a widespread panic, as in natural disasters when a lot of people need to evacuate, or as in your "black Friday" festival, that tin veneer of morality quickly vanishes. Then neighbour will attack neighbour, even when they've been neighbours for years.

A good example is in countries like Yugoslavia where Serbs, Bosnians and Croats lived together in relative peace. Once the Soviet dictatorship came down, out came the rifles and machetes. Iraq could be another example. In those instances you see the effect of a regime imposing law to keep society in order. Yes, fear and punishment does work and is the only solution sometimes.

So people need to ask, what is better? Social order under a tyrannical regime, or free will accompanied with unrestrained violence. You can't have it all. There are certain realities that we need to face. And that is, law. You don't have the freedom to do whatever you think is right.


So then all morality is merely obedience? That sounds a lot like slavery to me. Especially since this obedience is backed up with tremendous violence. So, it actually sounds exactly like slavery, not only of the body but of the mind.
Everyone has their own interpretation of it, the bible, god etc. Mine is, I don't promise to commit to it's "rules" out of fear for punishment, or out of expectation of reward. I do it out of respect and love for god and all of creation, much like anyone honours their parents, not out of fear but because of respect, and gratitude. Fear, punishment, reward doesn't even come into it.
 
not[B said:
a bene;1062813069
]I don't wish to derail this thread,
but get tired of misinformation continually being recycled. From a Denver Post blog:

Insurance companies, child advocacy groups and religion scholars say there is no evidence that Catholic clergy are more likely to be involved in sexual misconduct than other clergy or professionals. Yet ongoing civil litigation of decades-old cases against a church with deep pockets keeps the Catholic Church in the headlines. Catholic priests no guiltier of sex abuse than other clergy




I am not going to help you derail it, I have said all that I'm going to say on this topic.[/B]
 
I view being "good" as an emergent property of social behavior. Yes there would be some who gravitated towards lawlessness, and your estimate is probably about right. We would group together, and in small groups at first, and then in increasingly larger groups we would weed out those that are detrimental to the safety and well being of the whole. They would become ostracized and removed from the group or in some way neutralized so as not to create harm. As a result of removing bad and promoting good (behaviors which increase survival /individual safety), empathy will take over and order would get restored. "Good" is a necessity of our ability to thrive as a social animal.


Ah, see this touches on something that I find fascinating, which is the behavior of humans who suddenly find that the constraints have come off, perhaps along with the support systems they were accustomed to as well, and what they do in such situations.

Many try to fall back on ingrained habits which served them well when those habits were supported by civilization, law and relative prosperity. Many of those people die, because they encounter people who are taking advantage of the loss of constraint and fail to adapt to changing conditions in time.

Yet as others have pointed out we are social creatures with an instinctive understanding that our best interests are served through cooperating in groups. Pasch says we would immediately institute Law and begin to rebuild... I wouldn't put it quite that way. I'd say we would begin to ORGANIZE and restore some kind of ORDER within such a venue as "we" were able to control. What form that order and organization would take is a question mark.

Historically, a sudden power vacuum tends to result in Warlordism, with warlords or robber-barons or strongman-straw-bosses leading gangs of tough armed men and running things to THEIR preferences within such territory as they are able to control. Yes, there is "law" of a sort... the law of whatever the Boss Man says, goes. We've seen this historically during the Fall of Rome into the Dark Ages, and more recently in Somalia and other nations where the government collapsed suddenly.

Anyway, before I digress too much... the re-ordering of society after such a collapse will certainly be based to some degree on mutual benefit and social organization, but it is also typical that a lot of "law" in most societies benefits the RULING CLASS rather than the common people... and that democracy is expensive and poor societies don't usually have it.

Thus, a lot of what makes law and order is going to be rather subjective, and its ethical or moral standing subject to question in many cases. Historically, it has often been looked on as "good" to treat members of your OWN group with fairness and justice while exploiting or abusing the hell out of any outsiders that fall into your grasp, especially if they are members of a rival org... see Outlaw Biker Gangs. :)

I think I have completely forgotten where I was going with all this.... :lamo
 
Ah, see this touches on something that I find fascinating, which is the behavior of humans who suddenly find that the constraints have come off, perhaps along with the support systems they were accustomed to as well, and what they do in such situations.

Many try to fall back on ingrained habits which served them well when those habits were supported by civilization, law and relative prosperity. Many of those people die, because they encounter people who are taking advantage of the loss of constraint and fail to adapt to changing conditions in time.

Yet as others have pointed out we are social creatures with an instinctive understanding that our best interests are served through cooperating in groups. Pasch says we would immediately institute Law and begin to rebuild... I wouldn't put it quite that way. I'd say we would begin to ORGANIZE and restore some kind of ORDER within such a venue as "we" were able to control. What form that order and organization would take is a question mark.

Historically, a sudden power vacuum tends to result in Warlordism, with warlords or robber-barons or strongman-straw-bosses leading gangs of tough armed men and running things to THEIR preferences within such territory as they are able to control. Yes, there is "law" of a sort... the law of whatever the Boss Man says, goes. We've seen this historically during the Fall of Rome into the Dark Ages, and more recently in Somalia and other nations where the government collapsed suddenly.

Anyway, before I digress too much... the re-ordering of society after such a collapse will certainly be based to some degree on mutual benefit and social organization, but it is also typical that a lot of "law" in most societies benefits the RULING CLASS rather than the common people... and that democracy is expensive and poor societies don't usually have it.

Thus, a lot of what makes law and order is going to be rather subjective, and its ethical or moral standing subject to question in many cases. Historically, it has often been looked on as "good" to treat members of your OWN group with fairness and justice while exploiting or abusing the hell out of any outsiders that fall into your grasp, especially if they are members of a rival org... see Outlaw Biker Gangs. :)

I think I have completely forgotten where I was going with all this.... :lamo

I think you hit the nail on the head mostly because you know your history of human behavior and how subjective the word "Good" is.

Words or verbal communication are one of the reasons that the human species dominates, cooperates and coordinates, so well in the animal kingdom. In some of the "TEOTWAWKI" reality shows the first thing a group of people does is assign duties to the individuals most suited to their expertise to help the group survive. A leader who is usually a dominate male with the most confidence and general knowledge/experience quickly arises and begins to take control. Even the weakest members have vital skills to add for the groups survival and helps in defense and resource gathering because of numbers.

The loyalty and rules of sharing are almost on a family level in smaller groups but becomes more competitive for sustenance and assets as a community begins to grow and prosper.
 
You are a little more optimistic about human nature than I am. :) I've seen too much of the bad side of it to be quite so positive.

However, do you see the contradiction in your two paragraphs? In the first, you assert that the first thing we'd do in a collapse is make law and rebuild society and societies RULES. In the second you assert that obedience under threat is an abhorrent slavery to you... do you not recognize that all Law is also force and threat? That is the fundamental nature of it... it is not suggestion or guideline, it is LAW and it is enforced and violators are punished... and historically law has not been about the greatest good for the greatest number in many places and times...

I see a substantial difference in rules that we make for ourselves and can change, rather than being forced to by an unaccountable authority with absolute power. The former is democratic rule, which is the best balance between order and liberty we're yet discovered. The later is subjugation under complete tyranny. Might does not make right, and since the conjecture that I was responding to was that this authority defines what is right and wrong merely by being mighty, that's tyranny. That's a rule that you cannot dissent from, even in your mind. Rules that we make are dissented from freely. We change the rules quite often because of that dissent. What is more free than having a say in how you're governed, and what is more tyrannical than not even being able to harbor thoughts of disagreement?

Laws are rules, and you do follow them, but most laws aren't things like prohibiting murder and rape. They're things like stopping when the light turns red. Or environmental protections so that our water is safe to drink. Or not allowing the government to require us to host soldiers in our homes. I would contend that even those who murder and rape prefer to live in a society where those are the rules, where they are protected even when they break those rules. Nobody with even a shred of sanity would prefer a society without those rules. They might prefer that the rules didn't apply to them, but they still want them to apply to everyone else. But since, in a free society, we form the rules by consensus, they apply to everyone. It's true that our laws have seldom been about the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Even now, plenty of them aren't. But history has been a pretty steady march towards that maxim. The laws contained in religious myths are extremely primitive compared to our modern notions. They are good for extremely few people, possibly for no one.

Obviously, I think we can be plenty good without gods, since I find it extremely obvious that there are no gods and we're good anyway. As you say, I actually do have a pretty optimistic view of people. I find it horribly cynical to think that we need outside intervention to be good.
 
I think you hit the nail on the head mostly because you know your history of human behavior and how subjective the word "Good" is.

Words or verbal communication are one of the reasons that the human species dominates, cooperates and coordinates, so well in the animal kingdom. In some of the "TEOTWAWKI" reality shows the first thing a group of people does is assign duties to the individuals most suited to their expertise to help the group survive. A leader who is usually a dominate male with the most confidence and general knowledge/experience quickly arises and begins to take control. Even the weakest members have vital skills to add for the groups survival and helps in defense and resource gathering because of numbers.

The loyalty and rules of sharing are almost on a family level in smaller groups but becomes more competitive for sustenance and assets as a community begins to grow and prosper.



Yes, exactly. An interesting historical note is that the early robber-barons, after Rome's recessional, tended to live in a strongly built blockhouse with their followers, and all slept in the same open space around the fire. The Baron and his lady might have a canopied bed with curtains or something where others did not, but his armed retainers and servants and THEIR families all sort of "camped out" in the open space in the building around him. There was a high degree of communalism within that group, even if the Baron was the boss. That was the "in crowd" in a sense... they generally treated each other according to certain standards, but anyone outside that group was kind of fair game.

Later, fortresses were more elaborate, it got colder, the aristocrats started living in separate rooms upstairs while the soldiers and servants lived downstairs..... and the class divisions became much more distinct and important, leading to substantial changes in society...

Darn it, I segued completely off topic again, my apologies... :lamo
 
I think you hit the nail on the head mostly because you know your history of human behavior and how subjective the word "Good" is.

Words or verbal communication are one of the reasons that the human species dominates, cooperates and coordinates, so well in the animal kingdom. In some of the "TEOTWAWKI" reality shows the first thing a group of people does is assign duties to the individuals most suited to their expertise to help the group survive. A leader who is usually a dominate male with the most confidence and general knowledge/experience quickly arises and begins to take control. Even the weakest members have vital skills to add for the groups survival and helps in defense and resource gathering because of numbers.

The loyalty and rules of sharing are almost on a family level in smaller groups but becomes more competitive for sustenance and assets as a community begins to grow and prosper.

My whole point in starting this thread is that Good isn't subjective at all. It is based on absolute truth.
The examples that have been given show what happens in a micro-environment. If you view history on a world wide bases over long periods of time men tend ot realize God in some form or another, which I believe is the natural order.
If God made absolute truth it would be inevitable that we would return to it again and again over time, regardless of what might happen in isolated pockets for short periods, even if those periods are prolonged at times.

The idea of sacrificing oneself "for the greater good" is very Christian, if that greater good is God, not some dude on a throne. So we might view the struggle for food as a micro-event, but the struggle for truth as the long term condition.
 
I see a substantial difference in rules that we make for ourselves and can change, rather than being forced to by an unaccountable authority with absolute power. The former is democratic rule, which is the best balance between order and liberty we're yet discovered. The later is subjugation under complete tyranny. Might does not make right, and since the conjecture that I was responding to was that this authority defines what is right and wrong merely by being mighty, that's tyranny. That's a rule that you cannot dissent from, even in your mind. Rules that we make are dissented from freely. We change the rules quite often because of that dissent. What is more free than having a say in how you're governed, and what is more tyrannical than not even being able to harbor thoughts of disagreement?

Laws are rules, and you do follow them, but most laws aren't things like prohibiting murder and rape. They're things like stopping when the light turns red. Or environmental protections so that our water is safe to drink. Or not allowing the government to require us to host soldiers in our homes. I would contend that even those who murder and rape prefer to live in a society where those are the rules, where they are protected even when they break those rules. Nobody with even a shred of sanity would prefer a society without those rules. They might prefer that the rules didn't apply to them, but they still want them to apply to everyone else. But since, in a free society, we form the rules by consensus, they apply to everyone. It's true that our laws have seldom been about the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Even now, plenty of them aren't. But history has been a pretty steady march towards that maxim. The laws contained in religious myths are extremely primitive compared to our modern notions. They are good for extremely few people, possibly for no one.

Obviously, I think we can be plenty good without gods, since I find it extremely obvious that there are no gods and we're good anyway. As you say, I actually do have a pretty optimistic view of people. I find it horribly cynical to think that we need outside intervention to be good.



Well as I've noted, a lot of it depends on your definition of "good". To the Christian, "good" is "godly, righteous, acting in accord with the teachings of God". Absent any belief in an absolute truth or an absolute standard, you are left with relativism and social convention as to what is "good".

And you pays your money and you takes your frame of reference. :shrug:
 
Ah, see this touches on something that I find fascinating, which is the behavior of humans who suddenly find that the constraints have come off, perhaps along with the support systems they were accustomed to as well, and what they do in such situations.

Many try to fall back on ingrained habits which served them well when those habits were supported by civilization, law and relative prosperity. Many of those people die, because they encounter people who are taking advantage of the loss of constraint and fail to adapt to changing conditions in time.

Yet as others have pointed out we are social creatures with an instinctive understanding that our best interests are served through cooperating in groups. Pasch says we would immediately institute Law and begin to rebuild... I wouldn't put it quite that way. I'd say we would begin to ORGANIZE and restore some kind of ORDER within such a venue as "we" were able to control. What form that order and organization would take is a question mark.

Historically, a sudden power vacuum tends to result in Warlordism, with warlords or robber-barons or strongman-straw-bosses leading gangs of tough armed men and running things to THEIR preferences within such territory as they are able to control. Yes, there is "law" of a sort... the law of whatever the Boss Man says, goes. We've seen this historically during the Fall of Rome into the Dark Ages, and more recently in Somalia and other nations where the government collapsed suddenly.

Anyway, before I digress too much... the re-ordering of society after such a collapse will certainly be based to some degree on mutual benefit and social organization, but it is also typical that a lot of "law" in most societies benefits the RULING CLASS rather than the common people... and that democracy is expensive and poor societies don't usually have it.

Thus, a lot of what makes law and order is going to be rather subjective, and its ethical or moral standing subject to question in many cases. Historically, it has often been looked on as "good" to treat members of your OWN group with fairness and justice while exploiting or abusing the hell out of any outsiders that fall into your grasp, especially if they are members of a rival org... see Outlaw Biker Gangs. :)

I think I have completely forgotten where I was going with all this.... :lamo

I grok the gist of it ;)

And yes I see warlords and competing bands as well. there will be those who rise to power under the facade of security - and people will allow many abuses for this. There will be those who rise to power through brute force and oppression as well - eventually these are doomed to failure - when is another story. Over time these groups become larger and larger as they eliminate or incorporate one another - the most stable and the most successful rising to the top (and yes stability and success can come from oppression). The tendency will be towards groups that are larger and more oriented towards "good" as defined as behaviors which are detrimental to the whole.
 
I grok the gist of it ;)

And yes I see warlords and competing bands as well. there will be those who rise to power under the facade of security - and people will allow many abuses for this. There will be those who rise to power through brute force and oppression as well - eventually these are doomed to failure - when is another story. Over time these groups become larger and larger as they eliminate or incorporate one another - the most stable and the most successful rising to the top (and yes stability and success can come from oppression). The tendency will be towards groups that are larger and more oriented towards "good" as defined as behaviors which are detrimental to the whole.



Yes. Now about "good" defined as behaviors which are positive towards the whole... a lot of the problem there is who that "whole" is. Modern sensibilities tend to define that whole rather broadly, but this is a very recent development historically. To a 13th century Frenchman, it was "Good" to kill Englishmen, and vice-versa. :) To a 15th century French monarch, it was "good" to oppress the lower classes because it kept order and ensured the upper class' position, and it was "good" to attack and destroy Christian sects that failed to conform to the approved Church of Rome standards since any kind of division or dissent was "bad".

My point being that in an absence of absolute truth, there is only relativism, and it can vary a great deal depending on the society in question.
 
Yes, exactly. An interesting historical note is that the early robber-barons, after Rome's recessional, tended to live in a strongly built blockhouse with their followers, and all slept in the same open space around the fire. The Baron and his lady might have a canopied bed with curtains or something where others did not, but his armed retainers and servants and THEIR families all sort of "camped out" in the open space in the building around him. There was a high degree of communalism within that group, even if the Baron was the boss. That was the "in crowd" in a sense... they generally treated each other according to certain standards, but anyone outside that group was kind of fair game.

Later, fortresses were more elaborate, it got colder, the aristocrats started living in separate rooms upstairs while the soldiers and servants lived downstairs..... and the class divisions became much more distinct and important, leading to substantial changes in society...

Darn it, I segued completely off topic again, my apologies... :lamo

Yes, the feudal system kept Europe in the Dark Ages for so long because of it's brutal and competitive nature. It's as though the evolved civilizations that the Greeks and Roman Empire had risen to were devolving back into a more primitive society of fighting for land parcels and the resources they offered.

This is relevant to the OP because people have to understand that the premise of "good" changes with the times and it's application to the period. Biblically there were slaves and freeman for quite a long time and not considered a bad thing. The one similar value thru human societies is an accepted set of laws based on fair and equal treatment though that is often subjective, even in today's courts.

Even without the acknowledgment of a deity based religion or supreme being I believe the concept of "good" as we understand it would still exist. But as proven by the historical era's in between progress, where humans slide back in development we need to always try to keep an empathetic/value based system.
 
In my understanding of my experiences and observations of the world and the way it works, I am stating that I don't believe you can be truly good without God.
If there is absolute truth, then there is the possibility of good. Not a transient good fitting the opinions of the times, but a universal good that is always good, always the same, unchanging in time. Further, I would offer that God is the author of Truth. Absolute truth. It makes sense to me that there must be an author to set this in place. The first cause.
Without absolute truth we simply have our opinions. Opinions without absolute truth can be neither good nor bad, they just are, and we personally feel some way about them at the time.
What is good today may be bad tomorrow.

Yes - we can be.

I've seen no evidence in my life that believing in God = being a good person.
 
My whole point in starting this thread is that Good isn't subjective at all. It is based on absolute truth.
The examples that have been given show what happens in a micro-environment. If you view history on a world wide bases over long periods of time men tend ot realize God in some form or another, which I believe is the natural order.
If God made absolute truth it would be inevitable that we would return to it again and again over time, regardless of what might happen in isolated pockets for short periods, even if those periods are prolonged at times.

The idea of sacrificing oneself "for the greater good" is very Christian, if that greater good is God, not some dude on a throne. So we might view the struggle for food as a micro-event, but the struggle for truth as the long term condition.

No person can know the absolute truth. We're simply too limited to be exposed to that kind of information. Humans recognize God because of an inborn instinct, not just because of the physical creation. If you're calling our conscious the "absolute truth", then there may be some philosophical argument.

For many people God represents "life" and the struggle for that as the greater good is the coalescing force for humanity.
 
Yes. Now about "good" defined as behaviors which are positive towards the whole... a lot of the problem there is who that "whole" is. Modern sensibilities tend to define that whole rather broadly, but this is a very recent development historically. To a 13th century Frenchman, it was "Good" to kill Englishmen, and vice-versa. :) To a 15th century French monarch, it was "good" to oppress the lower classes because it kept order and ensured the upper class' position, and it was "good" to attack and destroy Christian sects that failed to conform to the approved Church of Rome standards since any kind of division or dissent was "bad".

My point being that in an absence of absolute truth, there is only relativism, and it can vary a great deal depending on the society in question.

We cannot attest to anything being an absolute truth though. We can assert that it is, but yes it is relativistic. I view good as what is best for the whole, and it is quite tricky to all agree on what it really is, the problem lies in an inability to step back far enough and look at what the whole is. Of course then we have the added complications of looking out for you and yours within the whole. It might be "good" to sacrifice that which you hold dear for the betterment of the whole, but we all know that we prioritize those closest to our inner circle above the entirety. Your point about modern sensibilities is along the lines of what i was driving at with my prior post, as time goes on and we have a tendency to be able to see the whole more clearly - with increased order and stability within subgroups we are able to envision what is best for the larger group. There still are a myriad of complications that arise due to familial and closeness issues though. Despite being able to see a larger picture - we still will prioritize what is closest to us altruism is not something that we as humans do well.

No matter how we slice I see good and our interpretation of good as relativistic. It also is a product of our tendencies to look at everything as a duality and not a gradation.
 
Back
Top Bottom